delete_artifacts

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Despite no annotations, description discloses all behavioral traits: destructive (IRREVERSIBLE), reads artifact inventory, records priorState, supports dry_run. Fully meets transparency requirements.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Description is well-structured with args section, but slightly verbose. Each sentence is useful, no waste. Front-loaded with purpose and risk.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Covers purpose, usage, parameters, and destructive behavior. Lacks explanation of return value format and error cases, but given no output schema, it's reasonable. Could be more complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage, description provides complete semantics for all 4 parameters: project (id or path), older_than_days (days to filter), dry_run (preview), target (server target). Adds significant value beyond schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description clearly states the tool deletes project artifacts, with options to delete all or older than N days. It distinguishes from siblings like list_artifacts by explicitly marking as WRITE and high risk.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides clear when-to-use: when deleting artifacts, with dry_run for preview. Mentions irreversibility. Lacks explicit comparison to sibling tools like stale_work_audit, but does warn about destructive nature.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.